Posted
by
Unknown Lamer
on Wednesday September 07, 2011 @10:01AM
from the pass-a-copyright-law-rover-good-boy dept.

Debuting on Slashdot, seezer writes with a piece by Rick Falkvinge about a recently release diplomatic cable. From the article: "Among the treasure troves of recently released WikiLeaks cables, we find one whose significance has bypassed Swedish media. In short: every law proposal, every ordinance, and every governmental report hostile to the net, youth, and civil liberties here in Sweden in recent years have been commissioned by the U.S. government and industry interests."
This is from a Pirate Party founder and so might be slightly exaggerated, but there is certainly evidence in the cable that the U.S. exerted quite a bit of influence of Swedish copyright law. The U.S. government appears particularly vexed that the Swedish public doesn't seem to think anything is wrong with copying protected works, and (not unexpectedly) was quite concerned that Pirate Party members might actually be elected.

When Julian Assange was recently accused of sexual assault in Sweden, I maintained that this had "CIA discrediting campaign" written all over it. One of the main responses to this was "But the U.S. government doesn't have any control over Sweden or what they do."

I think people really underestimate the power and sweep of the U.S. government and its wealthy corporate allies. The IMF, the UN, the World Bank, unrest in virtually every oil-producing country that doesn't support U.S. policy, attacks on anyone who criticizes or threatens the U.S. dollar, and in a million other places--you'll find the hand of the U.S. government and its most powerful corporations either calling the shots outright or at least having a significant influence on events.

Just look at the WIPO copyright treaty (the treaty that brought the DMCA and DMCA-like laws to almost every first-world country in the world). Hollywood and the U.S. music/publishing industry pretty much DICTATED that treaty, with the U.S. government then pressuring countries to implement it with a multitude of carrots and sticks.

Some may accuse me of hyperbole here. And, believe me, I wish I were exaggerating. But you never have to dig very far.

Yea, I remember having several totally aggravating arguments with tools who didn't seem to understand that the fake rape charges being drummed up against assange were not at all related to what he was being sought for by all the world's governments.

There are tools who are so completely controlled that this notion simply sailed right over their heads.

This is just a trivial translation error. The statement, "...The U.S. government appears particularly vexed...". I can not find a single documented case of any American government staffer losing sleep about what Sweden, as a population, or culture, or government, or Web Master thinks about Copy Write laws, anywhere. Now if the parent had written, "...The Lawyers representing the Copy Write Ranting Corporations that use the staff of the U.S. government as tools appear particularly vexed..." The translati

The US Government is as much victim as perpetrator. Haven't you been listening to the US right's hatred and contempt for government? And their proclivity for blanket statements and oversimplifications? It's expressed so well in this Reagan quote: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Our scientists and researchers do their jobs and come up with answers, and the right ignores them or makes ridiculous accusations of bias and incompetence. We pay for this attitude in many ways, not least being the low morale among bureaucrats. These hypocrites who profess such hatred for government are not shy about abusing and expanding government power when they are in control. The only parts of the government they like unconditionally, and like entirely too much, are the parts to do with security and force.

"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it." -- P. J. O'Rourke (conservative author)

Take hope in one important improvement: We did not support Mubarak, not this time, despite his friendliness with the US.

In the past, our government would have supported the ruler, as long as he professed friendship with the US, despite what US citizens or their people thought. The polite explanation was always "stability". Not so polite is "he's a bastard, but he's our bastard". Then the ruler and his cronies continue milking their people, who then hate us for supporting him. This always causes troub

...the Swedish Central Bank was also a recipient of some of that $16.1 trillion spewed forth from the Fed (thanks to GAO audit), and Carl Bildt was a director at Lundin Petroleum when those massacres were taking place in Sudan (moving people off of the oil-rich lands they lived on, etc.). Plenty of reasons, not even counting DoD contracts to Swedish defense firms, for pressure from the USA.

When Julian Assange was recently accused of sexual assault in Sweden, I maintained that this had "CIA discrediting campaign" written all over it. One of the main responses to this was "But the U.S. government doesn't have any control over Sweden or what they do."

There is a similar case going on just now. An Italian politician have, on an open street in Sweden, lifted his 12 year old son by the hair, the son was fleeing from a restaurant where his father had pounded him repeatedly in the face. One of the owners of the restaurant rushed out and was able to go in between, before the father did something worse. There are lots of witnesses to both incidents, the father/politician have not been judged yet, but he faces time inside a Swedish prison. If he was a Swede, his

The Assange thing is really irrelevant as part of the revelation. It was clear Sweden was a US puppet state long before that when the Swedish police raided TPB at the request of US authorities, and when the Swedish judiciary later deemed a trial of the TPB owners by a judge who was an active member of a US oriented media industry lobby group to be fair. Even for those who believe Assange is guilty and the US has nothing to do with that there is still evidence enough of a separate issue here- the US has far

"It was clear Sweden was a US puppet state long before that when the Swedish police raided TPB at the request of US authorities"
Yes, anyone remember how the Swedes changed their laws about how anyone could view papers sent to their parliament when the scientology cult got involved andf bribed some US senators to interfere.

Adopt the copyright law amendments on injunctive relief against ISPs and a âoeright of informationâ to permit rights holders to obtain the identity of suspected infringers from ISPs in civil cases.

into

Adopt "Three Strikes" making it possible to disconnect prople from the internet without a trial ("injunctive relief"), and implement the IPRED directive in a way that the copyright industry can get internet subscriber identities behind IP a

I was under the impression that the executive branch ignored the laws that Congress passes. That and the constitution.

It's not just the executive branch that ignores the constitution, the constitution takes a beating from all 3 branches. The executive branch is allowed to ignore laws (not enforce) that is the reason so many dumb laws stay on the books they simply are not enforced as is the right of the executive branch.

I don't know about Sweden, but in the US, prosecution is an executive function.

You don't think it would be the least bit scary if the police were simultaneously responsible for finding suspects, collecting evidence and directly prosecuting you? That is, you believe that it's fine that the people whose job it is to impartially and accurately record the evidence against you are also the same people whose job the next day is to argue as pointedly as possible that you are guilty? That's quite a conflict of interest.

What is your point? You don't believe that the prosecutor and police are both executive functions? They are. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, which is run by the Attorney General, who does the prosecutions.

The Supreme Court, on the other hand, is the judiciary. It neither investigates nor prosecutes, it adjudicates.

I see that you are correct and that I was wrong in stating that the police and prosecutor are not both executive functions. I find it no less scary - this is really not the way it should be. The police absolutely must record evidence accurately for there to be a semblance of justice, yet their ultimate boss is simultaneously responsible for making sure people go to jail based on evidence, and for the collection of the evidence. That creates an incentive to look harder for damning evidence, to ignore non-dam

hat is, you believe that it's fine that the people whose job it is to impartially and accurately record the evidence against you are also the same people whose job the next day is to argue as pointedly as possible that you are guilty? That's quite a conflict of interest.

That's an alignment of interest, not a conflict. The group who records and gathers evidence then presents the evidence. There's no conflict between those two duties, both parties are interested in getting convictions on the person they gathered evidence on. It would be a conflict if the same people who gather the evidence also decide on whether the evidence is good enough to convict. That's why the judge and jury are completely separate.

The separation of powers and trial by jury are perhaps the single biggest reason for the ascendency of Western civilization. It cut down on violence, vendettas, and corruption. In other parts of the world, when someone gets an official job, they sack all the old employees, and bring in their own people -- usually blood relatives.

The separation of powers and trial by jury are perhaps the single biggest reason for the ascendency of Western civilization. It cut down on violence, vendettas, and corruption. In other parts of the world, when someone gets an official job, they sack all the old employees, and bring in their own people -- usually blood relatives.

Which has exactly nothing to do with the fact that the police and the prosecution both come under the executive branch. And nothing to do with whether that is a sane choice. Or if we need 50,000 branches to keep every possible government function under a different one.

It works a bit differently in Sweden. Politicians are not considered competent to meddle in spedific cases and decide who is to be prosecuted and who isn't. The job of the elected politicians is to make policy, while the decision to prosecute is in the domain of prosecutors who are bound by the law as written down and not by the whims of politicians. The reasoning behind this is that it is believed to reduce corruption.

Now, of course politicians - enjoying power as they do - sometimes put pressure on prosec

If you don't know about Sweden, then why are you talking about it? The Åklagarmyndigheten is an independent authority, not attached to any ministry or branch of government. Unlike the USA, where the US attorneys are part of the Department of Justice and subject to direct political interference, the Åklagarmyndigheten is not a part of the Ministry of Justice.

....and so many of those characters involved in attempting to extradite Assange are financially connected to the Bonnier family??? (And the Brits should be focusing on extraditing the Murdoch family, given everything coming out about their knowledge and collusion with all that cellphone spying!)

Which simply doesn't translate. The US here is asking for something like the DMCA (which is required by treaty), not for "three strikes" legislation.

Wrong. The "injunctive relief" legislation that is being pushed is indeed ISP disconnection. From the PDF that TFA links to:

Injunctive relief in civil cases -- EU Copyright Directive: The law implementing Sweden’s obligations under the EU Copyright Directive entered into force on July 1, 2005 (Law 2005:360 amending the Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works, Law 1960:729). Particularly disappointing has been the lack of a specific injunctive relief remedy against ISPs as required under Article 8.3 of the Copyright Directive (and Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive). Proposed legislation to provide such a remedy is now pending in the Swedish Parliament.(3) If adopted by the Parliament, the amendment would go into one of the major deficiencies that rights holders have faced and which IIPA highlighted in its 2008 submission. (3)(http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2008/2008SPEC301SWEDEN.pdf)

And if you follow the link to the 2008 IIPA paper on the proposed legislation...

civil litigation, without preliminary injunctive relief, is just too slow to act as a deterrent.... Unfortunately, we have also heard that the present draft proposal does not contain a right to injunctive relief in a civil case against ISPs, and that it therefore fails to cure Sweden’s inconsistency with Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive and Article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive. In September 2007, a report was issued by Swedish Chief Judge, Cecilia Renfors (“Renfors Report”), recommending that the upcoming legislation contain provisions requiring ISPs to take action to terminate the contracts of certain users who repeatedly use the Internet to infringe copyright.... While this report and, in particular, the suggestions regarding disconnection of repeat infringers is welcome, it does not go far enough to bring Sweden’s legal and enforcement regime into harmony with international trends even assuming that the proposed legislation is adopted in its present form

So, not only do they want ISP disconnections, they actually want even stronger laws.

... The US here is asking for something like the DMCA (which is required by treaty),...

DMCA-like legislation is not required for treaty (are we talking WIPO here?) compliance. Canda's Dr. Michael Geist has gone to great lengths to explain why.

However, the US likes the DMCA and is hell-bent on ramming it down every other country's throat. And, sadly, the governments of most countries (including Canada's) are willing accomplices in this farce.

We can't even govern ourselves. Watch our House of Representatives in action for a real clown show.

Not true, the "persons" that elect the government are very well represented.
Remember that judicial precedence has created a situation where corporations are "persons" and must be treated equally under the law.
"Persons" can donate as much money as they want to political parties.
So... Corporations can donate as much as they want, anonymously, to political parties.
Corporations have billions of dollars.
"People" do not.
So, in a true and just society, corporations should be allowed to do anything peop

The reality is that most people are still happy enough in the west. They have food, employment (most of the time), and a decent standard of living. It's very difficult to get angry when you have your basic needs.

The only thing that will change this status is if people lose food, employment, or a decent standard of living. I can't see this happening any time soon. Basically, governments can do what they

It's pretty annoying that the Pirate Party and the Pirate Bay are working to make Piracy the de-facto standard around the world by giving everyone access to pirated stuff (damn be the creators who worked their asses off creating it), and then to have the Pirate Bay send insulting letters to creators when they want their work removed. I'd consider the US to be a pathetic lapdog if it sat around doing nothing to protect creators from thieves.

The Pirate Party (PP) and the Pirate Bay (TPB) are different entities. TPB was (at the time TFA refers to) a privately run torrent tracker and search engine, with servers in Sweden. PP is political party. I assume the letters you are referring to is the correspondence published on TPB. Most of that is to lawyers, not creators. But I don't suppose that makes a difference to you.

I'm not clear what it is exactly you're advocating. Do you support the interventionist policies of the US government? For something

Abdelhakim Belhadj [wikipedia.org] was the subject of "rendition" by the CIA and at least with knowledge (I'm not claiming more, though I suspect more) of MI6, and got taken back to Libya and imprisoned and tortured by the Gaddafi regime for 7 years or so.

Now he's highly placed in the Libyan government. Guess how he's going to look at "western" ideals of humanitarianism.

The _worst_ thing is that there will be many others who suffered his fate, yet didn't get back to political prominence - their voices will not be heard.

It's not PC but it happens, the US also bends to allow other nations interests to go threw too. It is called Diplomacy. These stints of making a compromise that prevents issues from building up and becoming a major issue.

The reason why it is not made public because the average Joe doesn't understand the concept of a good compromise where at the end both sides are equally unhappy. So they will make these small viewed complaints (Swedish make copyright policy just so we can get the latest American Blue Rays films) While the complexity of international trade is ignored, not realizing this effects shipment of more then just Films, but software, books, and other sources of information. If a company doesn't see your country as a profitable place to sell goods they won't sell to you. And you end up with loosing out on receiving goods and services that make that company unique. This isn't just about a monopoly every company has something that gives it a competitive advantage over someone else. Blocking trade has probably been considered more costly then the Copyright Policy.

The reason why it is not made public because the average Joe doesn't understand the concept of a good compromise where at the end both sides are equally unhappy. So they will make these small viewed complaints (Swedish make copyright policy just so we can get the latest American Blue Rays films) While the complexity of international trade is ignored, not realizing this effects shipment of more then just Films, but software, books, and other sources of information. If a company doesn't see your country as a profitable place to sell goods they won't sell to you.

Haven't we all learned that the marginal cost of reproducing information is ~0? What are they going to do, not sell Hollywood films and software and books and other sources of information? For one TPB would grow tenfold, secondly domestic printing presses and whatnot would go wild printing out of copyright books. This is an empty bluff and we know it, in the choice between small profit and no profit they'll take the small profit. But they will of course howl and scream that they must have large profits or t

You made a leap of faith at the beginning of the "If a company..." sentence.

You see, if a company thinks that, it can do as you wrote, or it can talk to the foreign government, or it can do all kinds of whatever it wants.

But we're not talking about a company talking to a government, or talking to its partners in the foreign country, or its customers. We're talking about a government talking to a government. And you can be fairly certain that the words used were not "companies A, B and C have asked us to tel

[Linked document] comes from the copyright industryâ(TM)s trade association IIPA, mainly consisting of record and movie companies. They have listed six demands on the Swedish Government, which stand to find in the linked document:

1. Adopt the copyright law amendments on injunctive relief against ISPs and a âoeright of informationâ to permit rights holders to obtain the identity of suspected infringers from ISPs in civil cases2. Prosecute to the fullest extent the owners of ThePirateBay [sic]3. Increase the prosecutorial and police manpower devoted to criminal Internet piracy enforcement4. Commence a national criminal enforcement campaign to target source piracy and large scale Internet pirates5. Ensure that rights holders may pursue the new civil remedies easily and quickly6. Take an active role fostering ISP-rights holder discussions to effectively prevent protected content from being distributed without authorization over the Internet

The documents also show that US threaten to put them on the Special 301 Report [wikipedia.org] if those are not followed.How much of a political pressure that is, I have no clue (but, Canada, China, Russia is on the Priority list there, and Spain, Norway, Finland and Italy among others, are on the list, so probably not that much).

Also from there:

-- The sensitive domestic politics that the GOS needs to manage in
order to step up internet piracy enforcement in Sweden. The GOSstruggles, with good intentions, against a very negative mediaclimate and against a vocal youth movement. For example, we wantto highlight the risk that negative media attention on the file sharingissue gives the Pirate Party a boost in the EU Parliamentaryelections in June 2009.

The reason why it is not made public because the average Joe doesn't understand the concept of a good compromise where at the end both sides are equally unhappy.

So what you're basically saying is "the reason why democracy is circumvented is because...". In other words, you're providing an argument for an oligarchic society with sham elections where people who vote don't actually know what their elected representatives stand for.

Well that begs the question, if you're a US citizen, but living abroad, you don't really benefit from the army, social security, government maintained roads, parks, or other public services that taxes go to pay. So should you really have to pay taxes?

Unless your assets are in a US bank, then I can see paying tax on interest or investment income.

You are benefiting from services someone back in the US would never need but still pay for. Someone back in the states really doesn't need the diplomatic corp and even abroad you're getting the benefit of US military power (see Maersk Alabama).

His beef isn't with IRS making US citizens do something - being citizens, they're up to sovereign US government to abuse as it sees fit. The point is that US intervenes into the affairs of foreign banks to do so.

The US government seeks to support US business interests in other sovereign nations. In my view, this goes beyond the constitutional basis for the US government. Some may (and will) disagree with this, but each nation needs to be respected as this nations needs to be respected. If you cannot persuade honestly and openly, then you are going too far where international relations are concerned.

In fact, I see this as government interference with business... the very same interference that these businesses cl

> "In fact, I see this as government interference with business... the very same interference that these businesses claim to be against!"

I'm pretty sure that the "no government interference with business" group of people still support government laws against theft. I don't think there's any contradiction in that. (Similarly, people who want to live in a free society still want laws against theft, murder, etc. - and that's also not a contradiction.)

This is talking about definitions of "theft" and copyright infringement is not theft. Please remove your head from between your buttocks and observe the facts. It may be convenient to call infringement theft, but it is not. That's why there is a different name for the offense.

The problem is actually, not that there are "lawless nations out there allowing people to steal" it's that their laws are different and respect intellectual property differently. This boils down to one government se

This is what diplomats DO all day. They try to influence policy in foreign countries to promote the interests of the government of their own country. (Which is separate from consular services, the other part of an embassy that handles visas, citizen services, etc.) Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't. The country they are operating in is more than welcome to tell them to go jump in a metaphorical lake.

Diplomats may do this all day and Americans may even benefit from this. The article, however, is written by a Swede who finally has clear evidence that a foreign power is manipulating his government into acting illegally. From my understanding, the negative public opinion that the diplomat is worried about is the strong belief Swedes have that they should run their own country.

You are right that sometimes they succeed and sometimes they fail. But the price of that failure when it becomes general knowledg

I don't get it; Big Business wants it both ways. They want the USA to protect their corporate interests around the world *at taxpayer expense*, and then, their CEOs get on TV and shout that we need smaller government, and the government should get it's nose out of business, and there needs to be less regulation.

Well sure. If the fat cats want unbridled capitalism with no restraint, then I say let that also be the end of copyright law, patent law, and every other government agency that works for Big Business

pressuring other countries to change their laws completely disrespects their sovereignty.

No it doesn't, not in the least. Especially when your dealing with international issues, such as respecting international copyright laws. Like it or not, countries are connected. Diplomats are going to argue for their countries point of view, and if a country wants to keep any connections to the outside world (even America) they are going to have to compromise on some of the things they want.

If I'm a citizen of X and the diplomat of Y says "we're not going to help you with problem 2 if you don't deal w

There are no 'international copyright laws.' There are international copyright agreements, and involvement in those often has other strings attached, making them not entirely voluntary.

'Problem 2' is in most cases that the countries pushing copyright agendas are going to threaten trade sanctions or otherwise opt for unfavorable trade policies unless they can get what they want in regards to copyright policy. I think in most viewpoints, trade sanctions are seen as a punishment. So, the reality is that

Our country is under no obligation to buy or sell goods with any other country. And if a country is in the view of many of our citizens "stealing" or misusing our goods and services why should we continue to do so if they aren't willing to address the problem? Your not entitled to our business and your not entitled to our goods. Both are given because it is mutually beneficial. If giving you those can be exchanged for something beneficial to my fellow citizens then it is my countries officials very duty

"Our country is under no obligation to buy or sell goods with any other country. "
That's not what's being argued. The 'obligation' is to let private Swedish entities and private American entities do business with each other as they so choose. At least on the American side, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Allowing Swedes and Americans to trade freely is thus the norm until a

What Sweden does with their copyright laws is of the US's businesses' business.

Fixed that for ya.
Everyone knows that it is our collective of corporations that controls the government. What controls the government controls the foreign policy. Isn't one of our largest of our largest exports hollywoodized media/movies/music? It only stands to reason that the **IAA has such a strong influence on foreign policy...

By "defending copyright" do you mean to include "defending repeated extensions to the term of copyright" and "defending the narrowing of fair use, first sale, and other limitations on the scope of copyright" and "defending copyright even when the owner of copyright in a particular work cannot be determined with reasonable research"?

You're 100% correct. Anyone who disagrees with you or the US must be 100% wrong. Now, let's go and try to force these laws on another country that doesn't care about them. The potential loss of potential profit is a terrible "loss," right? So let's waste a tremendous amount of time trying to rush through laws and force other countries to adopt them.